Re-write of China’s Prehistory

This is a total re-write of China’s prehistory (http://www.imperialchina.org/Pre-history.html) which was previously jotted down in an objective way but more or less following the orthodox Huangdi or the Yellow Emperor (overlord) line, i.e., Sima Qian’s Shi Ji perspective. The new angle would be to treat the majority of the recorded prehistoric rulers, both the Sinitic and the non-Sinitic various barbarians groups, such as the Qiangs and the same Zhou royal family Di barbarians, as well as the Chu royal family of the south, as belonging to the same origin and the same family.

The same origin validation could be seen in Zheng Yu of Guo Yu, wherein Shi-bo, in a dialogue with Zheng Lord Huan’gong, expounded the distinction between the Sinitic principalities [related to the Zhou royals, the brothers of the Zhou royals' mothers, and the nephews and uncles on the mothers' side] from those related to the Maan, Jing, Rong and Di barbarians, not counting the Yi barbarians who were taken to be beyond the eastern statelets of Qi, Lu, Cao, Soong, Teng, Xue, Zou, and Ju. For the barbarians, Shi-bo apparently made a case of identifying the Sinitic cliques ruling the barbarians from the barbarians themselves. Shi-bo, in the passage on the ‘Jing’ or Chu barbarians [who were counted among the southern 'Maan' group], explicitly listed the lineage of the ‘Jing’ or Chu ancestors, stating that Chu lord Xiong Yan had born four sons Bo-shuang, Zhong-xue, Shu-xiong and Ji-xun, with names bearing the Sinitic brotherly order, among whom the 3rd son fled to be a ruler among the southern ‘Pu’ [i.e., the later Hundred Pu] people and the 4th son took over the lordship in the spirits of ancient ancestors Chong-li — also taken to be two brothers of Chong and Lih[2] — with the Lih line tacking on the hereditary fire guardian [minister] post known as ‘Zhu-rong’ [i.e., virtues shining like fire]. Shi-bo’s point was that in extrapolating on the achievements of descendants of Yu-mu [lord Shun's line], Xia-yu [lord Yu], Zhou-qi [Zhou ancestor Qi or Hou-ji], it was claimed that inevitably Zhu-rong’s descendants, who had produced Count Kunwu[-shi] in the Xia dynasty and Count Da-peng and Count Shi-wei[2] in the Shang dynasty, should see the Mi-surnamed Chu people asserting themselves in the Zhou dynasty time period. Altogether, Shi-bo pointed to the Jiang-surnamed people [i.e., descendants of Bo-yi{-fu} who assisted overlord Yao as protocol minister], Ying-surnamed people [i.e., descendants of Bo-yi who assisted overlord Shun as interior minister], and Jing-Mi-surnamed Chu people as possible contestants for the Zhou dynasty’s rule — another Sinitic theme of power rotation.

At the very beginning, while still stopping at Southeast Asia, there had occurred earlier splits of the people who moved along the coast to become ancestors of future Altaic-speaking Tungus people [C haplogroup] with 50,000 years’ history, ancestors of the Hundred Yue people [O2a haplogroup] and ancestors of the Austronesian people with a history of 20,000 years. Taking the continental route to enter the Chinese continent about 15,000 years ago would be the O3-haplotype people who were the ancestors of the Sino-Tibetans, the Hmong-miens and the Mon-Khmers. Either moving together with the Sino-Tibetan people or following the Sino-Tibetan people would be ancestors of the Hmong-Mien people who split half way during the northern bound trip to settle along the Yangtze River.

-This webmaster, while acknowledging the genetic analysis of the O1, O2 and O3 people, thought the geographical split of those subclades could be recent, like 20,000 years ago, when the O2- and O1-haplotype people migrated into the Chinese continent along the coastline. This webmaster’s postulation was that the Shandong peninsula and today’s Hebei Province, i.e., the land of the original Nine Yi people, being not homogeneous, could have been the interface ground among the three main Mongoloid groups of people. We could further deduce that as a result of the mixing-up of the Hmong-Mien people and the Tungunsic people in today’s Hebei Province and on the Shandong Peninsula, we then have the phenomenon of the later people in Manchuria, Korea and Japan sharing the same archaic traditions as recorded among the ancient Nine Yi people of the 3rd millennium B.C.E., but lacking the hallmark  ”phoenix” adoration as still exists among today’s minority people in Southwestern China –the true descendants of the Hmong-mien people.

–For DNA studies on the southern origin of Mongoloid, refer to

Y-Chromosome Evidence of Southern Origin of the East Asian–Specific Haplogroup O3-M122;

Genetic Structure of Hmong-Mien Speaking Populations in East Asia as Revealed by mtDNA Lineages.

(Also refer to some analyst who stirred up the hornet’s nest about the purported Shandong DNA: The reanalysis of two previously published ancient mtDNA population data sets from Linzi (same province) then indicates that the ancient populations had features in common with the modern populations from south China rather than any specific affinity to the European mtDNA pool. The maternal DNA analysis had shown that the female genes of northern China and southern Chin had a history of 40,000 years and 60,000 years, respectively, and as the female genes preceded all the O-haplogroup people, it could not be used to timestamp the human migration in Asia.)

To re-assess Sima Qian’s Huangdi (i.e., the Yellow Overlord) orthodoxy in Shi Ji, we, in light of the genetical analysis, could examine and reconcile the conflicts in history in regards to the claim as to Yandi and Huangdi being brothers, and go back to the very ancestors of the Chinese nation and sort out the history’s paradoxes.

1) The original ancestor of the Chinese people to the east of the Sino-Tibetans was Feng-surnamed

The ancestor of the Chinese people to the east of the Sino-Tibetans was Feng[wind]-surnamed.

The O3-halpogroup group of people, splitting into the three groups of the Sino-Tibetans, the Hmong-Mien, and the Mon-Khmers (i.e., the Hundred Pu people), after leaving today’s Southeast Asia about 10,000-15,000 years ago, moved into the Chinese continent in three clusters, and along the way, the Hmong-mien people moved first eastward towards the coast, followed by the Sino-Tibetans, while the Mon-Khmers took over the southwestern Chinese territory in the hind.

With clusters of people moving south of, along and north of the Yellow River, either the Sino-Tibetans or the Hmong-mien people, i.e., their southern-belt moving cousins of the Sino-Tibetans, dominated the entire area in today’s central China, where they first founded the Peiligang [裴李岗文化] in the Yi-shui River and Luo-he River area, and then reached the coastal Shandong where they founded the Dawenkou Culture, against the coastal culture on the Shandong Peninsula, that might be first founded by the O-2 haplogroup Yi people and the O-1 Austronesian. The Jiahu site, taken to be of the Peiligang Culture type, produced the earliest tortoise shells containing dice-like stones, which could be the origin of Sinitic China’s tortoise shell divination. The Lingjiatan civilization, which produced the octagram star (i.e., prototyped on top of the pottery spin wheels), the double eagle-head jade octagram (i.e., prototyped on top of the three-leg or three-head sun bird of the Neolithic time, as seen in the excavated potteries carrying the three-leg birds coupled with the sun image or the three-head birds pulling the sun in the middle of its joint body), and a jade turtle with eight-trigrams-like drawings on a jade plate inside of its belly, corroborated the Jiahu site’s religious nature of the prehistoric tortoise shell divination. The tortoise shell divination, which was absent along the Yangtze and southern China but widely seen in the Peiligang and Dawenkou cultures, exhibited itself as a patented Sinitic tradition. Divination, i.e., the Sinitic nation’s structural and cultural backbone, could be traced to the Jiahu civilization (7000-8000 B.C; dendrochronologically-adjusted 7500－8800 B.C.) which could be the source feed for the Lingjiatan civilization (6000 B.C.) in the lower Huai-shui River rivercourse and the Dawenkou and Longshan culture in the lower Yellow River rivercourse. The Longshan (Lungshan) culture along the middle Yellow River rivercourse, which could be related to the Jiahu Culture’s eastern infusion towards the Dawenkou Culture and its subsequent back-tracing westward, and the successive Xia and Shang dynasties, inherited the Yangshao bone divination tradition, with the Shang people perfecting the divination custom of osteogenesis in addition to reviving the tortoise shell divination.

Historian Sima Qian did not trace the antiquity beyond Huangdi, the Yellow Emperor. Confucius abridged the ancient book Shang Shu [remotely ancient history], with the inception of recitals starting with Overlord Yao, a descendant of Huangdi. More, Zuo Zhuan repeatedly cited the non-Xia rulers of antiquity to be the Jiang-surnamed Yandi family, and listed the figure of Taihao (said to be Feng[-wind]-surnamed) as the No. 1 person, with Shaohao (Ji[3]-surnamed) succeeding. The Feng[-wind]-surname, according to the linguists, derived from the same soundex ‘Feng’ word that meant for the phoenixes. That is, the wind-meaning Feng character had its origin in the phoenix character. After examining the origin and locality of the above-mentioned persona, there is reason to believe that they all dwelled in the heartland of Sinitic China and should be of the Sinitic family heritage. For China’s prehistory, note the overwhelming evidence that the ruins or origin of majority of the ancient thearchs from the pre-Xia dynasty eras, such as the Zhu-rong Ruins (in the Zheng state), the Tai-hao Ruins (in the Chen-guo state), Taichen {Shang Dynasty} Ruins (in the Soong state), the Zhuanxu Ruins (in the Wey state), You-shen (in the Wey state), the Kunwu Ruins (in the Wey state), Chu-qiu Ruins (in the Wey state), and Shao-hao Ruins (in the Lu state), were located along the middle Yellow River line and corroborated the O3a1c-002611 haplogroup Sinitic people’s same origin in the central plains of North China. Whether Sinitic China ever had an earlier united kingdom (or dynasty) than Xia was unknown. However, archaeological excavations showed that over six thousand years ago, the Chinese continent entered a jade age from the Mesolithic age, with unison jade ritual artifacts (such as the square-shaped ‘yu-cong’ jade disks with a round cylindrical solid body and an inner perforated round hole, and the jade hatchets) adopted in different regions, albeit the co-existence of regionally-differentiated potteries at the non-rulers’ or plebeian levels.

Basically, the ancient China had limited coherent records on the lineage history, with mainly the surnames from the Tai-hao-shi’s Feng (wind) surname line, the surnames from the Fiery Lord’s line, the surnames from the Yellow Lord’s line, the surnames from the fire guardian Zhu-rong’s line, the surnames from the Shao-hao-shi’s line, and the surnames from the Qin ancestor Bo-yi4′s line. Plus some one to two dozens of archaic surnames that would include Kui2 (i.e., the Red Di barbarians’ surname), Yun3 (i.e., the Xianyun barbarians’ surname), Maan4, Gui1, Mie4 etc. (This webmaster, in the perspective that the Yun surname could be one of the earliest archaic names of China, on par with the Feng-surname of Tai-hao, the Kui surname of the later Chi-di barbarians, the Jiang surname of Yandi and the Ji surname of the Yellow Lord, speculated that the Yun-surnamed or Yun3-surnamed people might be the mainstream line of the barbarians in northwestern China while the Hu-shi clan’s Ji surname could be what the historians speculated to be some estranged descendants of Uncle Tang-shu.)

The records on the Fiery Lord and the Yellow Lord being abundant, the limited data on the Tai-hao-shi, Shao-hao-shi and Zhu-rong, interestingly, would augment Sima Qian’s case as to the big family school of thought for the prehistoric sovereign lords of China, namely, those lords leaving their footprints in the Sinitic heartland along the Yellow River.

What was known about the very first ancestor of Taihao was limited to several records in history, namely, Taihao had his Ruins in the Chen Principality’s location, namely, Wanqiu; that Taihao had the Feng or wind surname; that four wind-surname lords’ statelets of ‘Ren4′, ‘Su4′, Xuqu {Xugou} and ‘Zhuanyu were still in existence in the Zhou dynasty time period; that Taihao used the dragon for the title of his court ministers; and that Taihao was the utmost pure and generous, and was responsible for inventing the ’8 Gua’ [hexagrams], a divinity method called ‘milfoil divination’ as recorded in Yi Jing (Book of Changes). Should Taihao had its capital city in Wanqiu, there was ground to believe that Taihao was someone from the relatively western position not the natives of eastern China.

Lu Lord Xigong’s 21st year of Zuo Zhuanstated that the clans of ‘Ren’, ‘Su’, ‘Xuqu {Xugou}’ and ‘Zhuanyu’ [i.e., ordained to guard Mt. Mengshan] were Feng-surnamed, i.e., the wind-surnamed statelets; that they worshipped the pilgrimage of Taihao and Youji [i.e., the river god of the ancient Ji-shui River, near today's Ji'nan, Shandong Province]; and that they served the various Xia lords in a subordinate position. Lu Lord Zhaogong 17th Year stated that the land of Chen was formerly the Taihao Ruins [, in parallel with the claims of the land of Soong being the Taichen [Shang Dynasty, with 'chen' being the Shang celestial star] Ruins and the land of Zheng the Zhurong Ruins]. That is, nobody talked about the name of Fuxi yet, but the remotely ancient founding fathers of eastern or southeastern/northeastern China, i.e., lineages from the ancient Jiang-surnamed Yandi [or the Fiery Lord] tribe and the Feng[-wind]-surnamed Taihao tribe, who were the various Xia/Shang Dynasty and Chu state’s progenitors, including Zhurong – that is, all being of the restrictive non-Xia or restrictive non-Sinitic lineages.

Note that the ancient wind-surnamed Tai-hao [wrongly equated to the mystic Fuxi character] tribe was said to have used dragon as title for the court ministers, while the Shao-hao tribe was said to have used ‘phoenix’ for the court ministers, in comparison with the Yellow Overlord’s tribe which used cloud as title for the court ministers. Furthermore, Chi-you, a leader of possibly the mixed Hmong-mien/Sino-Tibetans, was symbolized by ox in numerous writings of ancient China. Today, the minority people of southwestern China had adored dragon, phoenix and ox, respectively, with implication that those O3-haplogroup Hmong-mien descendants [O3a3b-M7] could be related to the ancient Taihao-shi, Shaohao-shi and Chi-you tribes. Further, Liu Xin, to lend support to usurper-emperor Wang Mang of Xin [new] Dynasty, could have mis-interpreted the order of succession among the above-named tribes to make an order of Taihao [dragon], Gonggong [water], Yandi [fire], Huangdi [cloud] and Shaohao [bird]. Those symbolic denotions could be pure Han dynasty extension.

In Lu Lord Xigong’s 21st year of Zuo Zhuan, i.e., 639 B.C., the Viscount of the Xuqu {Xugou} state [which was eliminated by the Zhu-guo state under Viscount Zhu Lord Wen'gong {Cao Quchu}] fled to Lu. The Cao-surnamed Zhu-guo state was a fief conferred onto Cao Cie by Zhou King Wuwang in remembrance of Lord Zhuanxu. Cao Quchu relocated his state to Mt. Yishan (Zoucheng/Tengzhou, Shandong) from southwest of Qufu. Cheng-feng [i.e., dowager of Lu Lord Zhuanggong and mother of Lu Lord Xigong, carrying the wind surname of the Xuqu {Xugou} state] petitioned with the Lu lord for help in re-establishing the ancient Xuqu state. Cheng-feng made a claim that by doing so, the pilgrimage of Taihao and Youji [i.e., the river god of the ancient Ji-shui River, near today's Ji'nan, Shandong Province] could be continuing, which was in conformity with the Zhou dynasty’s rituals. After Cheng-feng died in 618 B.C., the Qin state sent over the ritual clothes as condolence. (Scholar Wu Limin, in rebutting Xu Xusheng’s eastern Yi/southern Maan theory, claimed that the Taihao reverence, or Shaohao, must be related to the Sinitic family; otherwise, why would Cheng-feng made the claim about the conformity with the Zhou rituals?)

2) The forged history of the Chinese civilization that started with Paoxi-shi and relayed by Shennong-shi

In the Han dynasty, following the book burning, there was a movement among the scholars to recompile the lost classics, with the warring states’ fable talks being taken  as some true history. It was claimed that the ancient Paoxi-shi invented the fishing net, studied geography and astronomy, and created the Eight Trigrams (八卦 bāguà). Following the Paoxi-shi would be the legendary Shennong-shi, i.e., the Divine farmer, whose representative was Yandi which enjoyed eight successions.  See the Yi-jing citation below.

Though, Confucius was faked by the recent scholars to have put out some writing in stating that the ancient Paoxi-shi invented the fishing net, studied geography and astronomy, and created the Eight Trigrams. Note that Confucius abridged classics to make into what was known later as the book Shang-shu that started with Lord Yao, with no mentioning of any figure beyond Yao, which was to say that should anybody say Confucius had mentioned an earlier figure, it would be a forgery. Further, the forgery writers made a pretension to state that it was Kong An’guo who wrote the preface to Shang-shu, namely, Shang-shu Xu, in which a statement was made to the effect that in the remote antiquity, Fuxi-shi took reign of the land, and began to invent the Eight Trigrams and create the wood-carved language characters. This would be Kong Yingda, a Tang dynasty historian and Confucius’ 32nd generation grandson, who authored the text Shang-shu Xu (preface to Shang-shu). Hence, Chinese prehistory was mechanically pushed out to have become something that started with Paoxi-shi, aka Taihao. This was something that provided fodder to the 20th century doubt-ancient scholars who had a point in saying that the more recent it became, the more detailed the stories about the ancient sovereigns became. Paoxi-shi was said to have marked the beginning of the so-called ‘Human’ or ‘Mt Taishan’ Era of ‘huang’ (splendidness or magnificence) which was successive to the Heaven ‘huang’ and the Earth ‘huang’.

The ‘huang’ story could be still a fuzzy concept at the time Qin Emperor Shihuangdi coined the title of ‘huang-di’ for emperor. At the time of Qin Emperor Shihuangdi, there was the start of the concepts of the heaven huang, earth huang and Mt. Taishan (human) human. There was the claim about the ancient lord Huangdi’s paying pilgrimage to Mt. Taishan, a manifestation that the earliest lords had their center of activities around this mountain, instead of the later Xia nation or the Da-xia land of today’s Shanxi Province. In this webmaster’s opinion, the third ‘Huang’ was taken as the Human ‘Huang’ possibly because Mt Taishan was the place where the ancient Chinese inscribed the names of overlords since antiquity. Hence, Human ‘Huang’ = Mt. Taishan ‘Huang’. Thouigh, there was no upgrade of the mythic and non-existent overlords, like Fu-xi, in the category of the three huangs.

Sima Zhen stated that Confucius had skipped Nu-wa (Nu-xi-shi) who was the ruling dynasty between Paoxi-shi and Shennong-shi. The claim pointed to Nu-wa sharing the same surname as Paoxi-shi, namely, ‘Feng’ (i.e., wind). Sima Qian’s Shi-ji had the pretentious discussion on the three legendary ‘Huang’; however, this section was speculated to be lost in the later times, and Sima Zhen had to rewrite it during the Tang Dynasty time period. Sima Qian, possibly Sima Zhen’s words, claimed that the Three Legendary ‘Huang’ were the Heaven ‘Huang’, Earth ‘Huang’ and Mt. Taishan Huang. Sima Qian in fact hesitated about starting history from the Yellow Thearch and never ventured beyond. Sima Zhen was ambiguous, however. Counting the Fuxi “dynasties”, you would have at least 15 (per Sima Zhen) dynasties, including Wuhuai-shi, in-between the three ancient ‘Huang’ eras and the known historical time period. Sima Zhen conflicted with himself in stating that anything after the Three ‘Huang’ and before the Wuhuai-shi Dynasty was fuzzy. Was Wuhuai-shi before or after Fuxi? If after, then why do we know more about Fuxi-shi than the latter, i.e., Wuhuai-shi? Sima Zhen’s writings were based on i) the ‘Wei’-Suffixed forgery-prone interpretation of the natural disasters and astronomical observation as noted in the history annals, Spring & Autumn, and ii) fables such as those by Zhuang-zi and Lie-zi. Related to Fuxi would be a clan entitled Hexu-shi, a tribe that some people had equated to so-called Hua-xu-shi where the character ‘Hua’ for denoting Xia Chinese was to develop. As to He-xu-shi, ancient classics “Tang Wen” in “Lie-zi” claimed that Huangdi had at one time had a dream touring the legendary He-xu-shi kingdom, which was illustrative of the Shangri-la kind of remote world beyond the Huangdi reign. “Lie-zi” could be a later forgery, though, or pure fables.

《周易.系辞下》“八卦成列，像在其中矣；因而重之，爻在其中矣；刚柔相推，变在其中焉；系辞焉而命之，动在其中矣。吉凶悔吝者，生乎动者也；刚柔者，立本者也；变通者，趣时者也。吉凶者，贞胜者也；天地之道，贞观者也；日月之道，贞明者也；天下之动，贞夫一者也。夫乾，确然示人易矣；夫坤，确然示人简矣。爻也者，效此者也。象也者，像此者也；爻象动乎内，吉凶见乎外，功业见乎变，圣人之情见乎辞。天地之大德曰生，圣人之大宝曰位。何以守位？曰仁。何以聚人？曰财。理财正辞、禁民为非曰义。 古者包牺氏之王天下也，仰则观象于天，俯则观法于地，观鸟兽之文与地之宜，近取诸身，远取诸物，于是始作八卦，以通神明之德，以类万物之情。作结绳而为网罟，以佃以渔，盖取诸《离》。包牺氏没，神农氏作，斫木为耜，揉木为耒，耒耨之利，以教天下，盖取诸《益》。日中为市，致天下之民，聚天下之货，交易而退，各得其所，盖取诸《噬嗑》。神农氏没，黄帝、尧、舜氏作，通其变，使民不倦，神而化之，使民宜之。《易》穷则变，变则通，通则久。是以「自天佑之，吉无不利」。黄帝、尧、舜垂衣裳而天下治，盖取诸《乾》、《坤》。刳木为舟，剡木为楫，舟楫之利，以济不通，致远以利天下，盖取诸《涣》。服牛乘马，引重致远，以利天下，盖取诸《随》。重门击柝，以待暴客，盖取诸《豫》。断木为杵，掘地为臼，杵臼之利，万民以济，盖取诸《小过》。弦木为弧，剡木为矢，弧矢之利，以威天下，盖取诸《睽》。上古穴居而野处，后世圣人易之以宫室，上栋下宇，以待风雨，盖取诸《大壮》。古之葬者，厚衣之以薪，葬之中野，不封不树，丧期无数。后世圣人易之以棺椁，盖取诸《大过》。上古结绳而治，后世圣人易之以书契，百官以治，万民以察，盖取诸《夬》。 是故《易》者，像也；象也者，像也。彖者，材也；爻也者，效天下之动者也。是故吉凶生而悔吝着也。 阳卦多阴，阴卦多阳，其故何也？阳卦奇，阴卦耦。其德行何也？阳一君而二民，君子之道也。阴二君而一民，小人之道也。 《易》曰「憧憧往来，朋从尔思。」子曰：「天下何思何虑？天下同归而殊途，一致而百虑。天下何思何虑？日往则月来，月往则日来，日月相推而明生焉。寒往则暑来，暑往则寒来，寒暑相推而岁成焉。往者屈也，来者信也，屈信相感而利生焉。尺蠖之屈，以求信也；龙蛇之蛰，以存身也。精义入神，以致用也；利用安身，以崇德也。过此以往，未之或知也；穷神知化，德之盛也。」”

Eight Trigrams (八卦 bāguà):

乾:天

兑:海

离:火

震:雷

巽:风

坎:河

艮:山

坤:地

Per 范曾 at http://baike.soso.com/v7558625.htm?ch=ch.bk.innerlink Confucius lectured on Yi-jing (《易经》) and his disciples compiled the interpretations to pass on to the Han Dynasty without the interruption from Qin Emperor Shihuangdi’s book burning owning to the ‘non-political’ nature of the said book whereas the history books from Zhou Dynasty and various principalities as well as various philosophical schools were burnt down.

《史记·孔子世家》曰：“孔子晚而喜《易》，序《彖》《系》《象》《说卦》《文言》。”

《汉书·艺文志》：“及秦燔书，而《易》为筮卜之事，传者不绝。汉兴，田何传之。”

《汉书·儒林传》：“汉兴，田何以齐田徙杜陵，号杜田生，授东武王同子中、洛阳周王孙、丁宽、齐服生，皆著《易传》数篇。”[颜师古注：“高祖用娄敬之言徙关东大族，故何以旧齐田氏见徙也。初徙时未为杜陵，盖史家本其地追言之也。”]

(《易传》７种１０篇: 《彖传》上下篇、《象传》上下篇、《文言传》、《系辞传》上下角、《说卦传》、《序卦传》和《杂卦传》。汉:“十翼”。)

The “milfoil divination” before Yi-jing (《易经》)  are: 《连山易》、《归藏易》

桓谭《新论》：“《连山》八万言，《归藏》四千三百言。”

The oldest book was 《三坟》

(南朝)刘勰《文心雕龙：自鸟迹代绳，文字始炳，炎皞遗事，纪在《三坟》，而年世渺邈，声采靡追。唐虞文章，则焕乎始盛。

[后]魏江式《论书表》:臣闻疱牺氏作，而八卦列其画；轩辕氏兴，而灵龟彰其彩。古史仓颉，览二象之文，观鸟兽之迹，别创文字，以代结绳，用书契以纪事。宣之王庭，则百工以叙；载之方册，则万品以明。迄于三代，厥体颇异。

许慎《说文解字.序》：“著于竹帛谓之书，书者如也。以迄五帝三王之世，改易殊体。封于泰山者七十有二代，靡有同焉。”

3) Three Legendary ‘Huang’ and Eight Legendary ‘Di’

补史记 小司马氏撰并注: “[索隐]小司马氏云：太史公作《史记》，古今君臣宜应上自开闢，下迄当代，以为一家之首尾。今阙三皇而以五帝为首者，正以《大戴礼》有《五帝德》篇，又《帝世》皆叙自黄帝以下，故因以五帝本纪为首。其实三皇以还，载籍罕备，然君臣之始，教化之先，既论古史，不合全阙。近代皇甫谧作《帝王代纪》，徐整作《三五历》，皆论三皇已来事，斯亦近古之一证。今并采而集之，作《三皇本纪》。虽复浅近，聊补阙云。”

‘San Huang’, termed the Three Sovereigns, were more likely mythical and non-human-entity titles at the time the first emperor of Qin coined his title ‘huang-di’ about 2200-2300 hundreds ago, were later mixed up with fables to become Fuxi, Yandi the Fiery Lord, and Huangdi the Yellow Emperor, or varying orders. The point was that in ancient China, we did have the saying of the ‘Heaven Huang’, the ‘Land Huang’, and the ‘Taishan Mountain Huang’ [which was mutated to the 'Human Huang' at some later time but before the Han dynasty scholars mixed it with the Zhuang-zi and Lie-zi fables to become the 'Human Huang'].

In varying orders, ‘San Huang’, or the Three Sovereigns, would be Fuxi, Yandi (Fiery Lord) and Huangdi (Yellow Lord, ? B.C.E. 2697 – 2599; reign 2402-2303 with rule of 100 years per Zhu Yongtang’s adjustment of BAMBOO). A Western Han Dynasty story claimed that Nü-wa, Fuxi and Shennong were the three ancient lords.

The Three Huangs denotation was embodying the ancient Chinese religious ideas and it could be compared to the trinity in Christianity. Concretely speaking, the relationship between heaven, land and the human beings would be an eternal topic of the ancient Chinese. The impact could be seen in the early dynasties like Shang which upheld polytheism and semi-human gods similar to the ancient Greeks. Below, I had followed the conventional history in attributing the idea of ‘Mandate of Heaven’ to Zhou Dynasty (instead of Shang Dynasty) because of distinction here between the polytheism reverence of the Shang people and the Heaven reverence of the Zhou people.

Continuing the Recitals about the Three Legendary ‘Huang’ Forgeries

Sima Qian’s Shi-ji had discussions on the three legendary ‘Huang’; however, this section was lost in the later times, and Sima Zhen had to rewrite in Tang Dynasty. Sima Qian claimed that the Three Legendary ‘Huang’ were the Heaven ‘Huang’, Earth ‘Huang’ and Mt. Taishan Huang. The third ‘Huang’ was taken as the Human ‘Huang’ possibly because Mt Taishan was the place that ancient Chinese inscribed the names of overlords since antiquity. Hence, Human ‘Huang’ = Mt. Taishan ‘Huang’.

As to the other designations for the three legendary ‘Huang’ using different order of deified human overlords, we could say they were all erroneous interpretations by ancient Chinese scholars who failed to properly understand the meaning of Mt Taishan inscriptions to be in the category of the ‘human’ gods after the heaven and the earth –which I called by a Chinese trinity at the previous writing on prehistory  (http://www.imperialchina.org/Pre-history.html) .

《史记·秦始皇本纪》：“古有天皇，有地皇，有泰皇。”

(晋)王嘉《拾遗录》:春皇者，庖牺之别号。…庖者，包也，言包含万象。以牺牲登荐于百神，民服其圣，故曰庖牺，亦谓伏羲。变混沌之质，文宓其教，故曰宓牺。布至德于天下，元元之类，莫不尊焉。以木德称王，故曰春皇。其明睿照于八区，是谓太昊。昊者，明也。位居东方，以含养蠢化，叶于木德，其音附角，号曰“木皇”。

皇甫谧《帝王世紀》: “孔子称古者三皇五帝设防而不犯，故无陷刑之民，是以或结绳而治，或象 画而化。自庖羲至于尧、舜，神道设教，可谓至政无所用刑矣。夫三载考绩，黜陟幽明，善无微不著，恶 无隐不章，任自然以诛赏，委群心以就制，故能造御乎无为，运道于至和，百姓日用而不知，含德若自有 者也。”

晋 皇甫谧 《帝王世纪》：“ 伏羲 、 神农 、 黄帝 为三皇， 少昊 、 高阳 、 高辛 、 唐 、 虞 为五帝。” (Huangfu Mi mixed up the Three Sovereigns to include the ‘human’ overlords, i.e., Huangdi the Yellow Overlord.)

《艺文类聚》卷一引徐整《三五历记》：“天数极高，地数极深，盘古极长。后乃有三皇。”

《太平御览》卷七八引《春秋纬》：“天皇、地皇、人皇，兄弟九人，分为九州长天下也。”

《古今注》：程雅‘自古何谓称三皇五帝？’ 董仲舒曰：‘三皇三才也，五帝，五常也，三王，三明也，五霸，五岳也。’”

唐司马贞《史记·补三皇本纪》: “一說三皇，天皇、地皇、人皇為三皇。” “自人皇已後，有五龍氏、燧人氏、大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、卷須氏、栗陸氏、驪連氏、赫胥氏、尊盧氏、渾沌氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、陰康氏、無懷氏。斯葢三皇以來，有天地者之號，但載籍不紀，莫知姓、王、年代、所都之處。而《韓詩》以為自古封太山、禪梁甫者，萬有餘家，仲尼觀之不能盡識。《管子》亦曰：「古封太山七十二家，夷吾所識十有五焉。」首有無懷氏，然則無懷之前天皇已後，年紀悠邈，皇王何升而告？但古書亡矣，不可備論，豈得謂無帝王耶？故《春秋緯》稱，自開闢，至於獲麟，凡三百二十七萬六千歲，分為十紀，凡世七萬六百年。一曰九頭紀，二曰五龍紀，三曰攝提紀，四曰合雒紀，五曰連通紀，六曰序命紀，七曰循飛紀，八曰因提紀，九曰禪通紀，十曰疏迄紀。當黃帝時，制九紀之間，是以錄於此補紀之也。”

Sima Zhen lamented that “the ancient books long lost; however, how could you deny that the ancient lords never existed?” Sima Zhen believed that there were ten epochs extending all the way to Huangdi’s era; that all names related to the earliest Heaven ‘Huang’ and Earth ‘Huang’ were unrecoverable; that ancient saint Yiwu could identify 15 out of 72 deities inscribed on Mt. Taishan [per Sima Qian's Shi Ji which in turn cited Guan-zi which was a Han dynasty forged or modified book by latter scholars] and Confucius failed to figure out the inscriptions of over 10,000 deities inscribed on Mt. Taishan.

The order of ancient human ‘godly’ overlords (Human ‘Huang’ [人皇]), shown with origin in different tribal groups, was different for different historians such as for Huangfu Mi of Jinn Dynasty versus Sima Zhen of Tang Dynasty. Should we interpret Sima Zhen’s statement as to say that the  overlords from different tribal groups, as shown below, all shared the same “Feng” family name as Fuxi? If so, then the (Human ‘Huang’ [人皇]) rule could have continued for another 78 [?] overlords, which came from tribal groups of the same lineage – Fuxi?

Or, alternatively speaking, the majority of the  Fuxi ‘dynasties’, about 15 [per Sima Zhen and pasted below], failed to earn the title to be called the (Human ‘Huang’ [人皇]) overlord. (Later ancient Chinese at most gave the Human ‘Huang’ [人皇] title to Fuxi, Nüwa, Shennong and Huangdi, which was fallacious in light of the original denotation for this title.)

晋•皇甫溢《帝王世纪》、《遁甲开山图》、《通鉴外记》:

女娲氏、大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、卷须氏(《通鉴外记》)、栗陆氏、骊连氏、赫胥氏、尊卢氏、混沌氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、阴康氏、无怀氏。

唐司马贞《史记·补三皇本纪》: 自人皇已後，有“五龍氏、燧人氏、大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、卷須氏、栗陸氏、驪連氏、赫胥氏、尊盧氏、渾沌氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、陰康氏、無懷氏”

《庄子·胠箧》：“子独不知至德之世乎？昔者容成氏、大庭氏、伯皇氏、中央氏、栗陆氏、骊畜氏、轩辕氏、赫胥氏、尊卢氏、祝融氏、伏犠氏、神农氏，当是时也，民结绳而用之，甘其食，美其服，乐其俗，安其居，邻国相望，鸡狗之音相闻，民至老死而不相往来。” (Adding Zhuang-zi’s list, there would have existed some additional dynasties between Fuxi-shi and Shennong-shi, with more southern China inclination, such as Zhurong-shi [祝融氏]. It appears that the addition of or the reference to the dozens of dynasties in-between Fuxi-shi and Shennong-shi had the same origin in the books of the Warring States time period, such as Zhuang-zi (《庄子》) and Lie-zi (《列子》). )

One statement from Sima Zhen was ambiguous. Counting the Fuxi “dynasties”, you would have at least 15 (per Sima Zhen) [人皇] dynasties, including Wuhuai-shi  [无怀氏] ,  in-between the three ancient ‘Huang’ eras and the known historical time period. My question is: Should we interpret the  15 (per Sima Zhen) [人皇] dynasties to be ahead of Fuxi or after Fuxi? Sima Zhen said that those 15 dynasties ensued from Nüwa-shi, starting with Dating-shi through Wuhuai-shi; however, Zhuang-zi had a slight difference in order and naming. (See 晋代皇甫谧《帝王世纪》:“女娲氏……承庖牺制度。……及女娲氏没，次有大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、栗陆氏、骊连氏、赫胥氏、尊卢氏、浑混氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、阴康氏、无怀氏，凡十五世，皆袭庖牺之号。”). Now Sima Zhen conflicted with himself in stating that anything after the Three ‘Huang’ and before the Wuhuai-shi [无怀氏]) Dynasty was fuzzy. Was Wuhuai-shi  [无怀氏] before or after Fuxi? If after, then why do we know more about Fuxi-shi than the latter, i.e., Wuhuai-shi? It does not make sense to me. See the same doubt from ancient scholar in comment below.

司马贞《史记·(补)三皇本纪》: 自人皇已后，有五龙氏、〔一〕燧人氏、〔二〕大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、卷须氏、栗陆氏、骊连氏、赫胥氏、尊卢氏、浑沌氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、阴康氏、无怀氏。斯盖三皇以来有天下者之号。〔三〕但载籍不纪，莫知姓王年代，所都之处。而《韩诗》以为自古封太山、禅梁甫者，万有余家，仲尼观之，不能尽识。《管子》亦曰，古封太山七十二家，夷吾所识十有二焉，首有无怀氏。然则无怀之前，天皇已后，年纪悠邈，皇王何升而告？但古书亡矣，不可备论，岂得谓无帝王耶？故《春秋纬》称自开闢至于获麟，凡三百二十七万六千岁，分为十纪，凡世七万六百年。一曰九头纪，二曰五龙纪，三曰摄提纪，四曰合雒纪，五曰连通纪，六曰序命纪，七曰修飞纪，八曰回提纪，九曰禅通纪，十曰流迄纪。盖流迄当黄帝时，制九纪之间，是以录于此，补纪之也。(You see Sima Zhen citing the forgery book 《春秋纬》.)

〔一〕 [索隐]五龙氏兄弟五人，并乘龙上下，故曰五龙氏也。

〔二〕 [索隐]按：其君钻燧出火，教人熟食，在伏牺前，谯周以为三皇之首也。

〔三〕 [索隐]按：皇甫谧以为大庭已下一十五君，皆袭庖牺之号，事不经见，难可依从。然按古封太山者，首有无怀氏，乃在太昊之前，岂得如谧所说？

唐  司马贞 《<史记索隐>序》：“今止探求异闻，采摭典故，解其所未解，申其所未申者，释文演注，又为述赞，凡三十卷，号曰《史记索隐》。”

Sima Zhen lamented that “the ancient books long lost; however, how could you deny that the ancient lords never existed?” Sima Zhen believed that there were ten epochs extending all the way to Huangdi’s era; that all names related to the earliest Heaven ‘Huang’ and Earth ‘Huang’ were unrecoverable; that ancient saint Yiwu could identify 15 out of 72 deities inscribed on Mt. Taishan [per Sima Qian's Shi-jiwhich in turn cited Guan Zi which was possibly a forged or modified book by latter scholars]; and Confucius failed to figure out the inscriptions of over 10,000 deities inscribed on Mt. Taishan. The order of ancient human ‘godly’ overlords (Human ‘Huang’ ), shown with origin in the different tribal groups, was different for different historians such as for Huangfu Mi of Jinn Dynasty versus Sima Zhen of Tang Dynasty. Should we interpret Sima Zhen’s statement as to say that the overlords from different tribal groups, as shown below, all shared the same “Feng” family name as Fuxi? If so, then the (Human ‘Huang’ ) rule could have continued for another 78 [?] overlords, which came from tribal groups of the same lineage as Fuxi? Or, alternatively speaking, the majority of the Fuxi ‘dynasties’, about 15 [per Sima Zhen and pasted below], failed to earn the title to be called the (Human ‘Huang’ ) overlord. (Later, ancient Chinese at most gave the Human ‘Huang’ title to Fuxi, Nü-wa, Shennong and Huangdi, which was fallacious in light of the original denotation for this title.)

Five Legendary ‘Di’

Liu Junnan (刘俊男), in his article on “tracing the origin of five ancient ‘Di’ overlords“, pointed out that the five ancient ‘Di’ meant for the ‘heavenly’ gods or the gods designating the five metaphysical directions, and that the ruling dynasties attached their wise ‘human’ leaders (gods) to the heavenly gods, in varying orders or with different naming placement in different dynasties.

This correct reading of the difference between the ‘heavenly’ gods and the human overlords should dispel lots of confusion in ancient classics concerning the origin and migration of tribes and nations, as well as refute the fallacies of ancient Chinese scholars in upgrading the human overlords to the category of the Three Legendary ‘Huang’ so as to create space for their preferred  human overlords in the list of the Five Legendary ‘Di’.

《孔子家语》: “季康子问于孔子，曰：‘旧闻五帝之名，而不知其实，请问何为五帝？’孔子曰：‘古之王者，易代而改号，取法五行，是以太皋配木，炎帝配火，黄帝配土，少昊配金，颛顼配水。’康子曰：‘太皋始于木，何也？’孔子曰：‘五行用事，先起于木。木东方也，万物之初，皆出焉。是故王者则之，而首以木德王天下。其次则以所生之行转相承也’”

《礼记·月令》: 太昊 ( 伏羲 )、 炎帝 ( 神农 )、 黄帝 、 少昊 ( 挚 )、颛顼。

《〈书〉序》：“ 少昊 、 颛顼 、 高辛 、 唐 、 虞 之书，谓之五典，言常道也。” 孔颖达 疏：“言五帝之道，可以百代常行。”

《周礼·春官·小宗伯》：“兆五帝於四郊。” 郑玄 注：“五帝，苍曰 灵威仰 ， 太昊 食焉；赤曰 赤熛怒 ， 炎帝 食焉；黄曰 含枢纽 ， 黄帝 食焉；白曰 白招拒 ， 少昊 食焉；黑曰 汁光纪 ， 颛顼 食焉。”

《史记·五帝本纪》 唐  张守节 正义：“ 太史公 依《世本》、《大戴礼》，以 黄帝 、 颛顼 、 帝喾 、 唐尧 、 虞舜 为五帝。 谯周 、 应劭 、 宋均 皆同。”

汉  班固 《白虎通·号》：“五帝者，何谓也？《礼》曰：‘ 黄帝 、 颛顼 、 帝喾 、 帝尧 、 帝舜 也。’”

《后汉书·显宗孝明帝纪》：“今令月吉日，宗祀 光武皇帝 於明堂，以配五帝。”

4) The meaning of the ancient “Huang” title - meaning lordly, beautiful and magnificent [not what the parts meant by 'white' and 'king'. See http://baike.baidu.com/view/270023.htm 形声。字从白从王，王亦声。“白”本义指“空白”。“王”指王者。“白”与“王”=>“空前的王者”、“以前没有过的王者”。本义：始王天下者。说明：“皇”字从白从王，首见于秦始皇会稽刻石。《说文》的皇字，从自从王，本义亦为“始王天下者”。至于“皇，大也”，有所谓“大九州”之说。]

《尔雅》：“林、烝、天、帝、皇、王、后、辟、公、侯，君也。”

《说文》：“皇，大也，自从。自，始也。始皇这，三皇太君也。”

《风俗通》：“三皇：道德玄泊，有似皇天，故称曰皇。”

《独断》：“上古天子：庖牲氏、神农氏称皇，尧、舜称帝，夏、商、周称王。”

西汉孝武皇帝《诗谱》：“德合北辰者皆称皇，感五帝坐星者皆称帝。”

《史记 秦始皇本纪》：“采上古帝位号，号曰皇帝。”

《独断》：“皇帝至尊之称。皇者，煌也。盛德煌煌，无所不照也。帝者，谛也。能行天道，事天审谛，故称皇帝。”

《白虎通》：皇，君也，美也，大也。天人之总，美大之称也。时质总称之。

应劭《汉官仪》：皇者，大也，言其煌煌盛美。帝者，德象天地，言其能行天道，举措审谛，父天母地，为天下主。

《山海经.大荒西经》：“有五彩鸟三名，一曰皇鸟，一曰鸾鸟，一曰凤鸟”

《尔雅·释鸟》: “凤，其雌皇”

《诗·大雅·卷阿》: “凤皇于飞”

《书·益稷》：“ 箫韶九成，凤皇来仪”

《离骚》：“鸾皇为余先戒兮，雷师告余以未具”。

《礼记·王制》：“有虞氏皇而祭”，郑注：“皇，冕属，画羽饰焉”。

《诗经.毛诗故训传》：“鳳皇，靈鳥仁瑞也，雄曰 鳳，雌曰皇。”

5) The Forgeries of Paoxi-shi (Fuxi-shi) & Shennong-shi

The  name for the very first progenitor was Fuxi伏羲, with surname Feng风, that derived from his mother’s tribe Fengyan 风兖 {华胥氏}. Fuxi could have been possibly mixed up with Taihao in Chinese prehistory as they were interchangeably used. Wang Jia of Jinn Dynasty defined the meaning of “hao” as brightness. (The most comprehensive modern & forgery interpretation I ever read would be what someone wrote as to “炎帝世系图谱“, linked here: http://scwei.bokee.com/viewdiary.22256312.html )

《竹书纪年》：“太昊伏羲氏，以木德王，为风姓。” (Bamboo Annals could be wrong in mixing up Taihao and Fuxi.)

(晋)王嘉《拾遗录》:春皇者，庖牺之别号。…庖者，包也，言包含万象。以牺牲登荐于百神，民服其圣，故曰庖牺，亦谓伏羲。变混沌之质，文宓其教，故曰宓牺。布至德于天下，元元之类，莫不尊焉。以木德称王，故曰春皇。其明睿照于八区，是谓太昊。昊者，明也。位居东方，以含养蠢化，叶于木德，其音附角，号曰“木皇”。

《帝王世纪》：“伏羲氏，风姓也。”

The above claim in regards to Fuxi could be ascertained by the excavated ‘silk book’ and ‘bamboo book’ (战国帛书; 楚简) from the Chu Principality time period, during the Warring States of Eastern Zhou Dynasty, a place that relatively retained the trace of the original Sino-Tibetan Chinese who might include the migrants from the Shandong Penisula and North China due to the conquest by the Ji-surnamed Huangdi tribe between approximately 2500 BC and 3000 BC. What the ’silk book’ and and ‘bamboo book’ said was that Fuxi (or Baoxi [ i.e., (包)(戏)] ) of the Fengyan [风兖] tribe was born in the Leize-shi nation (雷泽氏), but grew up in the land of mother Huaxu-shi (华胥氏), namely, Juzhou [雎州], and later relocated to the land of today’s Qin’an [甘肃秦安] which was called Chengji (成纪) . The ‘silk book’ (战国帛书) and and ‘bamboo book’ (楚简) , in describing  Nüwa (女娲), wrote it in the form of Nüxi-shi  [施，读作“析”、“希”] and alternatively termed it by Nü-ju ( 女虘) where the latter word was a combination of Hu (虎 tiger) and Ju (且)  and hence the name of Nüju (女虘）, a country that continued till Shang Dynasty.

Should we buy the above statement, then Nüwa (Nüxi-shi)  was not something that was invented by Xu Zheng of the Three Kingdom time period.

The domain of the ancient rule prior to Shennong was said to have covered the Greater Nine Prefectures. Note the Jiang-rong barbarians, i.e., ancestors of the Huns, had their own Nine Prefectures in western China which was in contrast with Huangdi’s united China of the Lesser Nine Prefectures. (It was said that Zou Yan first proposed the Nine Prefecture theory.)

《帝王世纪》：“神农以上有大九州，柱州、迎州、神州之等。黄帝以来，德不及远，惟于神州之内分为九州。”

According to Prince Tan-zi from Tan-guo Principality, the order of ancient overlords after Fuxi-shi (i.e., Taihao) would be:

Taihao-shi -> [[Nuuwa-shi (skipped)]] -> Gonggong-shi -> Yandi-shi -> Huangdi-shi (The added “skipped” bracket was mine, which I am to add here to be Nüwa-shi. This simplified order of succession could point to a possibility that at Zhou Dynasty’s time, Tan-zi and et al, had already failed to master the true essence of the ancient Chinese legacy. In another word, there is reason to suspect that ancient Chinese had mixed up Fuxi with Taihao while basically knowing null and void about what happened beyond Taihao and after Fuxi.)

《左传·昭公十七年》 记载：“秋，郯子来朝，昭子问焉，曰：‘少皋氏鸟名官，何故也？’郯子曰：‘吾祖也，吾知之矣。昔者黄帝氏以云纪，故曰云师而云名。炎帝氏以火纪，故以火师而火名。共工氏以水纪，故以水师而水名。太皋氏以龙纪，故以龙师而龙名。我高祖少皋挚之立也，凤鸟适至，故纪于鸟师而鸟名’”

6) The Forged Birth History of Shennong-shi (i.e., Yandi)

The ancient historians tried to reconcile the records, and hence pointed out that Huangdi’s mother, Fubao ( 附宝), came from a tribe whose ancestors belonged to the same Youqiao-shi (有蟜氏) tribe as Yandi’s mother. As to Yandi, the claim was that his mother came from the Youqiao-shi (有蟜氏) tribe, carrying the name of Andeng (安登). Fubao or Andeng could not be the same woman even though the tribe could be traced to the same one, Youqiao-shi (有蟜氏).

The above were attempts to forge the birth history of Yandi.

《易·系辞》：“包牺氏没，神农氏作，斫木为耜，揉木为耒，耒耨之利，以教天下，盖取诸《益》。”

唐 司马贞《史记·补三皇本纪》: “太皞，庖犧氏，風姓，代燧人氏繼天而王。母曰華胥，履大人跡於雷澤，而生庖犧於成紀。虵身人首，有聖德。仰則觀象於天，俯則觀法於地，旁觀鳥獸之文與地之宜。近取諸身，遠取諸物，始畫八卦，以通神明之德，以類萬物之情。造書契，以代結繩之政。於是始制嫁娶，以儷皮為禮。結網罟，以教佃漁，故曰宓羲氏。養犧牲以庖犧，有龍瑞，以龍紀官，號曰龍師。作二十五絃之瑟。木德王，注春令。故《易》稱帝出于震，《月令》孟春：「其帝太皞」是也。都於陳，東封太山。立一百一十一年崩。其後裔當春秋時有任、宿、須句、顓臾，皆風姓之胤也。” “女媧氏亦風姓，虵身人首，有神聖之德。代宓犧立，號曰女希氏。無革造，惟作笙簧。故《易》不載，不承五運。一曰水媧亦木德王，葢宓犧之後已經數世。” “女媧氏沒，神農氏作。炎帝，神農氏，姜姓。母曰女登，有蟜氏之女，為少典妃感神龍而生。炎帝人身牛首，長於姜水，因以為姓。火德王，故曰炎帝，以火名官，斲木為耜，揉木為耒，耒耨之用，以教萬人。始教耕，故號神農氏。於是作蠟祭，以赭鞭鞭草木，始嘗百草，始有毉藥。又作五絃之瑟，教人日中為市，交易而退，各得其所。遂重八卦，為六十四爻。初都陳，後居曲阜。立一百二十年崩，葬長沙。神農本起烈山，故左氏稱烈山氏之子曰柱，亦曰厲山氏。《禮》曰：「厲山氏之有天下」是也。神農納奔水氏之女，曰聽訞為妃，生帝魋。魋生帝承，承生帝明，明生帝直，直生帝氂，氂生帝哀，哀生帝克，克生帝榆罔。凡八代，五百三十年而軒轅氏興焉。其後有州、甫、甘、許、戲、露、齊、紀、怡、向、申、吕，皆姜姓之後胤。竝為諸侯，或分掌四岳。當周室甫侯、申伯為王，賢相齊、許列為諸侯，霸於中國。葢聖人德澤廣大，故其祚胤繁，昌久長云。”

《春秋纬·元命苞》：“少典妃安登游于华阳，有神龙首，感之于常羊，生神农。人面龙颜，好耕，是谓神农，始为天子。” (The [纬] ‘wei’-suffixed books were mostly later forgeries as well.)

Sima Zhen, stating that Confucius had skipped Nüwa (Nüxi-shi) who was the ruling dynasty between Paoxi-shi and Shennong-shi. The ancient claim pointed to Nüwa sharing the same surname as Paoxi-shi, namely, ‘Feng’. Sima Zhen continued to state that Shennong-shi married with daughter from Benshui-shi Tribe and born son Tui. Tui born son Cheng. Cheng born son Ming. Ming born son Zhi. Zhi born son Mao. Mao born son Ai. Ai born son Ke. Ke born son Yumang. Altogether eight generations, lasting five hundred and thirty years, till Huangdi’s ascension to power.

《淮南子．览冥训》：「娲，古之神圣女，化万物者也。从女、呙声。」「女娲，阴帝，佐宓牺治者也。」「往古之时，四极癈，九州岛裂。天不周载，火爁炎而不减，……于是女娲炼五色石以补苍天，断鳌足以立四极，杀黑龙以济冀州，积芦灰以止淫水。……乘雷车，服应龙，……导鬼神，登九天，朝帝于灵门。」

唐 陈子昂 《大周受命颂》：“符鸟之肇，开辟元台， 女希 氏姓，神功大哉！”

《帝王世纪辑存》：「女娲风，承伏羲制度，亦人头蛇身，一日七十化。」

6) The Forged Birth History of Shennong-shi (i.e., Yandi)

Shennongshi  was known as  the ‘Agri-huang’. (神农氏“农皇”。)

《白虎通义》：“古之人民皆食禽兽之肉。至于神农，人民众多，禽兽不足，于是神农因天之时，分地之利，制耒耜，教民农耕。神而化之，使民宜之，故谓之神农氏”。

.
《淮南子·修务训》：“古者民茹草饮水，采草木之实，食螺蚌之肉，时多疾病毒伤之害。于是神农乃始教民播种五谷”。

《庄子·盗跖》：“神农之世，卧则居居，起则于于，民知其母，不知其父，与麋鹿共处，耕而食，织而衣，无有相害之心”。

清 陈寿祺 辑《尚书大传·卷第四》 ：“神农为农皇也。……神农以地纪，悉地力种谷疏，故托农皇于地”。(Shang-shu Da-zhuan was a wei-suffixed forgery.)

【蔡邕·獨斷】皇帝，至尊之稱也。上古天子庖犧氏，神農氏稱皇。堯，舜稱帝。夏，殷，周稱王。秦幷以爲號，漢因之不改。

《春秋[纬]·元命苞》: 　伏羲、女娲、神农为三皇。 (The [纬] ‘wei’-suffixed books were mostly later forgeries as well.)

7) The Mixing-up of Li-shan and Lie-shan-shi

Chinese classics, per Sima Qian’s Shi Ji, claimed that the early Chinese overlords were of the same heritage. Yandi (the Fiery Lord) was said to have been born in Lixiang, northeast of the Yellow River inflexion point, and he was known as Li-shan-shi by the name of Lixiang, which was very much corroborated by the ancient classics to be the land of today’s Mt Zhongtiaoshan on the north bank of the Yellow River.

Shen-nong or the Divine Farmer was a relatively new concept as well, later than the name of the Lie-shan-shi clan which, per Lu Yu of Guo Yu and Lu Lord Zhaogong’s 29th year of Zuo Zhuan, possessed son Zhu who was renowned for planting hundred kinds of grains and hundred types of vegetables.

Lu Yu of Guo Yu talked about two ancient clans which produced the founding gods or guardians of ‘ji’ (i.e., grains) and ‘she’ (i.e., mud [temple]), with the combination of the two characters of ‘ji’ and ‘she4′ to mean a country’s foundation or pillars. What it said was that Lie-shan-shi had a son called Zhu who was known for planting the grains and vegetables, an agricultural legacy that was succeeded by Zhou ancestor Hou-ji; and Gong-gong-shi had a 4th son called Hou-tu (i.e., the mud guardian) who was revered as a god of mud for quelling the land or settling the mud of the ancient nine prefectures. In the above, Lie-shan-shi, which was later taken to be Yandi or the Fiery Lord, was juxatoposed against Gong-gong-shi, without any direct hint as to the relationship between the two. While the ocurrence of Lie-shan-shi was isolated in the ancient text, the ‘Gong’ citation was linked to a descendant who carried the ‘Si-yue’ or the four mountains’ title, someone who was further ascertained to be Jiang-surnamed, as to be expounded below.

Zuo Zhuan, i.e., more ancient records, merely talked about the progenitor of both the Yandi and Huangdi as someone called Shao-dian, without any reference to a mystic figure called Shen-nong or the divine farmer –a figure that could have mutated from the record on the ancient Lie-shan-shi clan which produced a son called by Zhu, i.e., the first recorded agricultural guardian of prehistoric China.

According to Lu Yu of Guo Yu, agricultural/prehistoric China did possess someone called Zhu, a son of the Lie-shan-shi clan [i.e., equivalent to the later-known Shen-nong-yi {the Divine Farmer}] or Yandi {the Fiery Lord}, who was renowned for planting hundreds of grains and hundreds of vegetables. That was to say that ‘ji-guan’ or the grains official did not start with Hou-ji, i.e., Zhou Dynasty’s ancestor, but someone much earlier – someone not necessarily Shen-nong-yi {the Divine Farmer} or Yandi {the Fiery Lord}] but a son of this Lie-shan-shi clan. Another point to make is that any prehistoric figure or name beyond Lie-shan-shi could be the latter-day fabrication.

P.S.: Among the list of books cited above, quite some were either straight forgeries, i.e., written by someone who claimed that some ancient scholar, like Confucius, had written it, while some other books were modifications or editing by later scholars. For a history of forgeries done by scholars in late Han Dynasty, Xin (New) Dynasty and Eastern Han Dynasty, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/11960312/%E6%98%A5%E7%A7%8B%E7%BA%AC (As to some of the forgeries that were just interpretation, I did not specifically refute them.  However, should the passages in forgeries be of the nature that impacts the topic of bearing of the civilization, such as the purported jade trade by Guan Zi‘s claim of the tribe of Yu-shi (misappropriated to be Yuezhi), then I will definitely rebut it. In this section on China’s prehistory, the timing of the forged works is something I pay special attention to so as to discard the claim of some of the prehistory that was built on the ‘drift sand’. An example of forged prehistory is seen at http://shoucang.dahe.cn/sczx/jczs/t20100913_1830159.html)